Bystander Experiment - Lab Report Example

Bystander Experiment College: The current study was carried out to determine the influence of cross-sex helping and genderdifferences in helping behavior. This study looks at the effect of cross-sex helping and gender differences in helping behavior. There were two groups of participants that were considered in the study. The first group (group 1) consisted of male victims and 2 observer while the second group (group 2) had a female victim and 2 observers. Different locations were picked around the University and the victims would act to drop papers on the ground. In the due course, the observers looked to see what the bystanders would do and later they had to record the response in the note book. The victims (actors) were between the ages of 20 to 40. The findings indicated that female and male A’s were more likely to receive help from cross-sex helpers than from same sex helpers. Females were found to be twice as likely to receive help and slightly more likely to give help than males. Introduction According to literature, in the western societies, it has been indicated that gender is a n important factor in helping behaviour, despite the results have been contradictory. I has been found that men are more likely to help as compared to women(feinman, 1978).On the other hand, women have been found to be more likely to help than men(Bihm,Gaudet,& Sale,1979).There are as well other studies that have indicated that there is no difference between the two(Benson,Karabenick,& Lerner,1976).The person gender that is being helped is a critical factor in the helping behaviour due to women and men could be more willing to help a n opposite sex individual. More so, the person attractiveness who is being helped can influence the willingness to help, particularly for male helpers. On the other hand, both women and men could ask for less help from a helper who is attractive of the cross gender. Ameta-analysis that was based on 99 studies on the gender influence on helping behaviour has indicated that men helped more often as compared to women as well as they were more likely to help women more than men. The effect of the bystander is an example, where individual could think about the consequences before acting. This is particularly in a densely populated place where people could opt to help (Vaughan & Hogg,1973)., In situations that is not emergence, males are seen to be less likely in helping as opposed to high cost situations (Lantane & Darley, 1970). The reward cost or is the loss or gain of something due to either not helping or helping. Usually, the cost is the effort and time shared by the helper in the course of helping (Darley & Batson, 1973). However, it is as well seen that not helping could have a cost may affect an emotional response of feeling guilty, selfish and anxious (Vaughan & Hogg, 1973) as well as in other cases self critical. Norms like social responsibility, suggest that help is supposed to be given to those people in need, without any expectation of being rewarded (Berkowitz, 1972). However, when persons happen to be rewarded, there are higher chances that they will help again (Grusec, 1982). Such behavior is reinforced and could either be negatively or positive induced (Rushton & Teachman, 1978). The main Objective of the Study To determine the effects of cross-sex helping and gender differences in helping behaviour. The study also is supposed to determine the effects of population density on the helping behaviour. In relation to the previous studies, it is believed that females and males are more likely to receive help from cross-sex helpers as compared from the same sex helper as well as it is that females are more likely to help than males. In relation to these, the current study is aimed at ascertaining the claim Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: People will help more in sparse locations than in dense locations Hypothesis 2: People will be more likely to help the female victim than the male victim. Method Participants There were two groups of participants that were considered in the study. The first group(group 1) consisted of male victims and 2 observer while the second group(group 2) had a female victim and 2 observers. The helpers were members from the public aged between 20-40 years. Materials Loose papers and notebooks were used as drop materials while a pen and paper were used to record the results Procedure Different locations were picked around the University and the victims would act to drop papers on the ground. In the due course, the observers looked to see what the bystanders would do and later they had to record the response in the note book The variables were organized as follows: Dependent Variable: amount of people that helped Independent Variable: gender of the victim/ type of sparseness (sparse < 5/dense > 10) Observational study: general information- Regents university students/potential staff, public area, locations, Design: observational study, public setting, IV, DV, how it was recorded Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Density of population in area 1.00 Sparse 20 2.00 Dense 20 Gender of Victim 1.00 Male 20 2.00 Female 20 Table 1.Summary of the variables Descriptive statistics Dependent Variable: No. of people that helped Density of population in area Gender of Victim Mean Std. Deviation N Sparse Male 1.2000 1.03280 10 Female 1.1000 .99443 10 Total 1.1500 .98809 20 Dense Male 1.8000 1.31656 10 Female 1.7000 1.56702 10 Total 1.7500 1.40955 20 Total Male 1.5000 1.19208 20 Female 1.4000 1.31389 20 Total 1.4500 1.23931 40 Table 2.Descriptive statistics Basing on descriptive statistics, it can be observed that in sparse area, there were a total of 20 participants that responded in this case 10 male and 10 female. In a densely populated area, there were 20 female and 20 males totalling to 40 participants. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: No. of people that helped Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 3.700a 3 1.233 .790 .507 Intercept 84.100 1 84.100 53.872 .000 Density 3.600 1 3.600 2.306 .138 Gender .100 1 .100 .064 .802 Density * Gender .000 1 .000 .000 1.000 Error 56.200 36 1.561 Total 144.000 40 Corrected Total 59.900 39 a. R Squared = .062 (Adjusted R Squared = -.016) Table 3.Tests of between-Subject Effects Figure 1.Density of population in area Discussion According to the table above, it is observed that the P values of between variables are greater than 0.05 in all cases that include, between gender, between the populations (densely and sparsely populated). In this case, the p value of 0.520 is greater than the 0.05; we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means that there is limited evidence that the variances aren’t equal as well as the variance assumption homogeneity may fit. The findings indicate that the assumption was supported and that males and females, and there was a high likely hood that both male and female were to receive help from cross-sex helpers as compared to the same sex helpers. It as well supports the assumption that females are more likely to receive help as compared to males as well as slightly more likely to give help as compared to males. However females were slightly less helpful than males in cross-sex helping. In regards to the population, it is observed that there people are more likely to help in sparsely populated area as compared to densely populated area. The results also indicate that the male are more likely to help in a densely populated area than compared to the females. This is clearly evident in the graph shown above (figure 1).The test on the subject between variables on the density verses gender shows that there they are not related at all. This is shown by the F value which is less than 0.05.The research findings are in line with the literature (Dovidio1982) whereby the females were more likely to get help as compared to the males. In relation to this,the person gender that is being helped is a critical factor in the helping behaviour due to women and men could be more willing to help a n opposite sex individual. More so, the person attractiveness who is being helped can influence the willingness to help, particularly for male helpers(Harris and Bays,1973).On the other hand, both women and men could ask for less help from a helper who is attractive of the cross gender (Dovidio1982). References Dovidio, J. (1982). Sex, costs and helping behaviours. Journal of Psychology, 111, (2), 7. Eagly, A.H., & Crowley.M. (1986). Gender and helping behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin, 100, 283-308. Vaughan, G., & Hogg, M. (1995). Introduction to social psychology, prentice hall. Latane, J., & Darley, B. (1970). The Unresponsive Bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 7-17. Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108. Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. Advances in social psychology 6, 63-108. Acad. Press, N.Y. Grusec, J.E. (1982). The socialization of altruism. In N. Eisenberg (ed.), The development of prosocial behaviour. New York: Academic Press. Rushton, J.P., & Teachman G. (1978). The effects of positive reinforcement, attributions, and punishment on model induced altruism in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 322-325. Feinman,S.(1978).When does sex affet altruistic response?Psychological Reports,43,1218. Bihm,E.,Guadet,I.,& Sale,O(1979)Altruistic responses under conditions of anonymity.Journal of Social Psychology,109,25-30. Benson,P.L.,Karabenick,S.A.,& Lerner,R.M.(1976).Pretty Pleases.The effects of physical attractiveness,race andsex on receiving help.Journal of experimental Social Psychology,12,409-415. Read More